Read on Twitter
In July 2017, I was asked by DCLG to be the independent expert to verify their 8414 ACM testing program at the BRE. On July 21st, I visited the BRE to view the installation of the 8414 rigs that were being prepared for testing.
1/6
1/6
My feedback to DCLG included my disapproval that a division of Kingspan had been selected to design and build the test rigs given their products had been involved in the Fire. Not only was this inviting accusations of bias, I felt it was also incredibly insensitive.
2/6
2/6
My second objection related to the choice of the ACM which was I was told had been supplied direct from the factory of Kingspan’s ACM partner Alpolic. I said that a third party ACM should have been selected and material sourced from normal supply chain routes.
3/6
3/6
My 3rd objection, was regarding the presence of a senior Kingspan technical/marketing executive at the build. He was repeatedly referred to yesterday by Ms Barwise QC and should not have been there. DCLG claimed he was merely there to represent foam insulation manufacturers.
4/6
4/6
My final objection was that all the mineral wool tests were being done on one rig and all the foam insulation tests were on another. Not only could this lead to systematic error, there was a general belief in industry that some BRE rigs performed much better than others.
5/6
5/6
When Sajid Javid referred to this testing program in the Commons, he stated that it had been independently inspected. He didn’t confirm however, and almost certainly hadn't been told, that I’d reported back with such serious concerns about how the project had been managed.
6/6
6/6
